Useful Searches

Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

I just wanted to share something my fiance' came up with. She is a jewelry designer and has a shop with her daughter. They asked if I had an outlet for some of their items and I told them I would share it with everyone here at CF. So I started them an Etsy Shop account to showcase what they have done. And this is the first items! Check it out and let me know what you think!

From all that I've witnessed, that's what the average Libertarian believes. It's only a few who imagine that complete anarchy is compatible with individual freedom.

Click to expand...

Anarchy is the ultimate in personal freedom but not pracctical due to the fact that someone is always going to want to opress someone else so we need a government to mediate the opression and engage in it themselves.

I think it is a good ruling, but not for the usual political reasons everybody is always screaming about. In my own opinion, no POTUS has, or should have the authority to amend or create laws. And essentially, in creating this policy, this is what Pres. Obama did. To override the authority of congress is not acceptable.

I oppose most restrictions on travel between countries. Putting up walls to keep people out also keeps us in. The right to travel is a natural human right, like the other rights, i.e. freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc.

The death penalty is way wrong. So many people are wrongly convicted, at least 10%. Only God knows who deserves to die. Murderers can repent and be good Christians like anyone else can. The prison system is a for-profit institution based on greed, like much of the corruption in our society. We have way too many imprisoned for trivial offenses as well as wrongful conviction by corrupt officials.

I oppose most restrictions on travel between countries. Putting up walls to keep people out also keeps us in. The right to travel is a natural human right, like the other rights, i.e. freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc.

The death penalty is way wrong. So many people are wrongly convicted, at least 10%. Only God knows who deserves to die. Murderers can repent and be good Christians like anyone else can. The prison system is a for-profit institution based on greed, like much of the corruption in our society. We have way too many imprisoned for trivial offenses as well as wrongful conviction by corrupt officials.

While I do not agree on open borders, that is a discussion for another thread. My point here is that no sitting POTUS should have the authority to legislate, which is essentially what his immigration e.o. did. For this reason, it must be turned back. And changes in the law must come from congress, NOT the desk of the POTUS.

Anyone else feel like oppressing people by leaving them alone to make their own choices?

Click to expand...

Welcome to the board and to the 'Pub'. i've been 'oppressing' people since 1986. Winning the Presidency for two terms isn't going to make freedom happen. There is so much that needs be undone in this country that it would take a couple of decades to set it to right. Like it or not, we have to find a way to do it such that the least number of people are permanently harmed consistent with the Libertarian principle of non-aggression.

Trying to get those reforms past career politicians would prove to be a challenge due to the fascists pretending to be capitalists or socialists on both the right and the left.

...and I want to take this opportunity to apologize for "oppressing" you, Calvinist Dark Lord.

I don't know you, or much of anything about you, and I haven't had any previous contact with you that I recall...so I'm being told that because I have allowed you to live your own life as you choose to live it, this means I've oppressed you. Sorry.

While I do not agree on open borders, that is a discussion for another thread. My point here is that no sitting POTUS should have the authority to legislate, which is essentially what his immigration e.o. did. For this reason, it must be turned back. And changes in the law must come from congress, NOT the desk of the POTUS.

Click to expand...

I think the president and Congress should be abolished, so we can be oppressed by governments closer to home.

...and I want to take this opportunity to apologize for "oppressing" you, Calvinist Dark Lord.

I don't know you, or much of anything about you, and I haven't had any previous contact with you that I recall...so I'm being told that because I have allowed you to live your own life as you choose to live it, this means I've oppressed you. Sorry.

Click to expand...

Apology accepted...for now. However be aware that i'm not a patient man. i'll give you 40 years to stop oppressing me by leaving me alone in the conduct of my own life, and then...i'll probably be too dead to care about it

Welcome to the board and to the 'Pub'. i've been 'oppressing' people since 1986. Winning the Presidency for two terms isn't going to make freedom happen. There is so much that needs be undone in this country that it would take a couple of decades to set it to right. Like it or not, we have to find a way to do it such that the least number of people are permanently harmed consistent with the Libertarian principle of non-aggression.

Trying to get those reforms past career politicians would prove to be a challenge due to the fascists pretending to be capitalists or socialists on both the right and the left.

Click to expand...

I'm probably going to vote for Gary Johnson because Billary and the Hairpiece are two sides of the same coin.

I'm probably going to vote for Gary Johnson because Billary and the Hairpiece are two sides of the same coin.

Click to expand...

Been that way since the 1940 election, when the Repukelicans selected former Demonrat Wendall Willkie to run against FDR. There was no real difference between the two of them.

There have been some exceptions, Goldwater in 1964 for the Repukelicans, and McGovern in 1972 for the Demonrats. However, it's usually just two wings of the same bird following the same flight path.

i have my problems with Johnson however. He's a bit 'squishy' to me, and selecting Bill Weld as his running mate is a problem. He's Bob Barr all over again, only not as solid and a very late convert. Austin Petersen or John McAfee would have been better running mates.

i was impressed with McAfee despite his supposed 'baggage'. Petersen needs some seasoning before he's ready for the top spot, but the kid is pretty bright and has a future under the Libertarian banner.

i'm worried about what has become of the party as of late. When Barr won the nomination in 2008, there were some shenanigans with the guy who became his running mate, Wayne Allen Root. i happen to think that Mary Ruwart would have been a better candidate than Barr, and she was leading until Root, running in third place threw his support to Barr.

i'm worried about what has become of the party as of late. When Barr won the nomination in 2008, there were some shenanigans with the guy who became his running mate, Wayne Allen Root. i happen to think that Mary Ruwart would have been a better candidate than Barr, and she was leading until Root, running in third place threw his support to Barr.

Click to expand...

This is the "rub" for all minor parties. If they go for the most electable candidates in order to look serious, they usually have to compromise their policies; but if they go for the philosophically-sound candidate (usually a party worker who's unknown the outside world and has almost no political resume), they attract little attention from the media and, consequently, the voters.

Barr seemed to me at least to have made the effort to toe the Libertarian line for the most part. Johnson is just a liberal (and Weld moreso), except for the parts of the Libertarian platform that are least attractive to the average voter. This election and this ticket should provide an interesting case study in "which way to go," however.

This is the "rub" for all minor parties. If they go for the most electable candidates in order to look serious, they usually have to compromise their policies; but if they go for the philosophically-sound candidate (usually a party worker who's unknown the outside world and has almost no political resume), they attract little attention from the media and, consequently, the voters.

Barr seemed to me at least to have made the effort to toe the Libertarian line for the most part. Johnson is just a liberal (and Weld moreso), except for the parts of the Libertarian platform that are least attractive to the average voter. This election and this ticket should provide an interesting case study in "which way to go," however.

Click to expand...

Although i held my nose and voted for Barr (he was IMO the best candidate of the bunch), i thought that Mary Ruwart was the stronger candidate, especially as Sarah Palin was running on the Repukelican side. Dr. Ruwart is a VERY intelligent woman, and had a great deal to offer.

i have nothing against Barr. On the contrary i think his progress has been good. However i was concerned that when pressed he'd fall back on his instincts which were social conservative Republican at that time. In fairness to the man he did take the Libertarian message to heart, and remains solidly Libertarian. But it does take time for Libertarian thought to permeate to one's inner most being.

i would not say that Johnson is a liberal --unless you mean Classical (Jeffersonian) Liberal. It is fair to say that Johnson is NOT a social conservative. However he is fiscally conservative enough to satisfy most Libertarians. On the issues of freedom, Johnson is solidly Libertarian.

Weld on the other hand...Johnson could have made a better choice. i hold at this time, the same views toward him as i did with Barr in 2k8. Weld has a track record and it is not good as a Libertarian would weigh 'good'. Is his conversion to Libertarianism genuine, or is it opportunistic? No data to determine that one way or the other.

What i believe you are reaching for is to find a compromise between ideological purity vs. electability.

Let's face it: NO Libertarian is at this time going to win the Presidency. However, what i believe you may be missing is the idea that there is a third reason that the Libertarians even field a Presidential candidate: Namely to expose the general public to the ideas of Libertariansim. We ALL know that Johnson stands no chance at all of being elected. However getting the general voting public exposed to the ideas of Libertarianism is worth the bother.

Ironically, Ron Paul, running as a Repukelican served that role better than anyone else in the party. Again ironically, he was our candidate in 1988. i'm one of the few people who actually voted for him.

Let's face it: NO Libertarian is at this time going to win the Presidency. However, what i believe you may be missing is the idea that there is a third reason that the Libertarians even field a Presidential candidate: Namely to expose the general public to the ideas of Libertariansim. We ALL know that Johnson stands no chance at all of being elected. However getting the general voting public exposed to the ideas of Libertarianism is worth the bother.

Click to expand...

You're probably correct that this is a good reason, according to most Libertarians. I'm not so warm towards it, however. I believe that this is a minor part of why one would want to have a third party. Achieving this objective can be done better through any number of Libertarian-oriented organizations not including a political party.